JUDGMENT

Kh. Nobin Singh, J. - Heard Shri R.S. Reisang, the learned Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the applicants/appellants and Shri R.T. Rebirthson, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This is an application filed on behalf of the applicants/appellants, the State respondents praying for condonation of delay of 312 days in preferring the Regular First Appeal on the ground of bonafide mistake namely, the Applicants/Appellants did prefer an appeal against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 18-07-2016 before the learned District Judge, Imphal West which was rejected on 28-07-2017 by it on the ground that it had no appellate pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The relevant paragraphs 2 to 5 of the application are reproduced herein below:-

"2. That, on 9th August, 2017, the Government Advocate (High Court), Manipur received an order for preferring an appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 18-07-2016 passed in O.S. No. 4 of 2015 (5 of 2016) passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Chandel, Manipur from the Law Department, Government of Manipur.

3. That, on receipt of the aforesaid letter by the Office of the Government Advocate (High Court), Manipur, the matter was discussed for preparation of drafting RFA along with Misc. Application for condonation of delay.

A copy of the said order dated 9th August, 2017 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure - M/1.

4. That, the Applicants/Appellants preferred an Appeal against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 18-07-2016 before the Ld. District Judge, Imphal West, Manipur along with Judl. Misc. Case No. 32 of 2017 vide Application dated 15-06-2017 praying for condonation of delay. However, the Application was rejected on 28-07- 2017 on the ground that the Hon'ble Court has no Appellate pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal as well as the Judl. Misc. Case for condonation of delay. Hence, in approaching the wrong Forum was a bonafide mistake committed by the Government Advocate (District).

A true copy of the order dated 28-07-2017 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-M/2.

5. That, while preparing the Memo of Appeal along with Misc. Application for condonation of delay, some days have been consumed for preparation of Memo of Appeal and Misc. Application for condonation of delay."

3. In order to contest the application, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent wherein it has been submitted that there is no cogent reason or any sufficient cause for having preferred the appeal after a long time. After the Judgment and Decree being passed on 18-07-2016, the respondent filed an Execution Case being E.C. No. 2 of 2016 in which the defendants therein namely, the applicants/appellants herein participated in the proceedings through their counsels. Since the applicants/appellants have the knowledge of the judgment and decree being passed on 18-07-2016, the lapse and inaction on their part shall not be the ground for condoning the delay without proper explanation. The respondent has denied the averment that the delay was due to bonafide mistake and that it is a lame excuse just to cover up the mala fide attitudes, negligence and dilatory pleas of the applicants/appellants. Although the judgment and decree having been passed on 18-07-2016, the applicants/appellants approached the learned District Judge only on 15-06-2017 after a lapse of about 11 (eleven) months and there is no explanation for not preferring the appeal prior to 15-06-2017.

4. Relying upon the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Shri R.S. Reisang, the learned Senior Government Advocate, has submitted that the State being an impersonal machinery, this court while considering the application for condonation of delay, may take into account the fact that since the State is required to take a collective decision, it always takes time while doing that. The first decision relied upon by him is the one in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Kat